Your message dated Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:55:05 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#791629: mount/umount: Handling of -n option and
/etc/mtab is buggy
has caused the Debian Bug report #791629,
regarding mount/umount: Handling of -n option and /etc/mtab is buggy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
791629: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=791629
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: mount
Version: 2.20.1-5.3
Severity: minor
I got unexpected results from the the following command sequence:
(/dev/sdb1 is an image of the root filesystem, /dev/sdb4 is an image of
/usr)
# mount -t ext2 /dev/sdb1 /mnt -o ro
# chroot /mnt
# mount -t ext2 /dev/sdb4 /usr -o ro
# ls -l /etc/mtab
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Nov 18 2014 /etc/mtab -> /proc/mounts
# umount -n /usr
warning: failed to read mtab
# exit
Of note, why *didn't* `mount -t ext2 /dev/sdb4 /usr -o ro` produce an
error/warning due to being unable to write to /etc/mtab, and why *did*
`umount -n /usr` produce an error about being unable to read /etc/mtab?
Strictly, neither of these technically violates what the man pages say,
but both violate what is expected. With the `mount` command "-n" was
*not* specified so I would expect an error from mount about being unable
to write to /etc/mtab.
Meanwhile, `umount`'s -n option is a prohibition on /writing/ to
/etc/mtab and not /reading/ /etc/mtab. Yet the instruction not to write
to /etc/mtab does suggest it shouldn't be read (and may well be
unreadable).
I'd rate umount's behavior as more troublesome than mount's, but both of
these seem incorrect.
--
(\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/)
\BS ( | [email protected] PGP 87145445 | ) /
\_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/
8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello again.
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:34PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> This is the oldstable version. I've got plans to upgrade, but [...]
Please feel free to report back once you've overcome your personal
obstacles with upgrading.
I really don't have the resources nor interest to debug already fixed
issues multiple times just for fun.
Professional support can be arranged for you if needed, but the debian
bug tracking system really isn't the place for that.
Please also note that you *now* have approximately 2 years timewindow
for helping out testing the "Stretch" release and improve it.
Arriving 2 years late at the train station and complaining about the
train already having left the station isn't going to buy you much
sympathies anywhere.
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
--- End Message ---
